Description:
Please get the dial in information from our private Action Item here:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xliff/members/action_item.php?action_item_id=3663
==========
Agenda:
I. Approve 7 February 2017 meeting minutes
Minutes for 7-February 2017 approved by email thread https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201702/msg00107.html
II. Public review
“Public Review for XLIFF v2.1 - ends February 24th” Chet https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff-comment/201702/msg00002.html
A. Public review comments
1. “text protection using native codes and
==========
Minutes:
Minutes of XLIFF TC meeting on 2017-02-21
David: quorum achieved with 4 out of 5 voters. Felix on LOA, Regrets from Lucía and Phil
David comments on need to expand active membership. The final redtape might be kind of boring but we will be in toruble if ww arrive at cos01 with 6 or less voters.. WEe should reach out to people who stopped attending and also make the agneda more interesting with 2.2 considerations. I reached out to Patrik from SDL and to Ryan, didn't hear from Ryan, Bryan should try and get to Ryan and Fredrik..
Bryan: last meting minutes https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201702/msg00107.html approved bz electronic call for diseent to progress csprd02
Based on David's proposal
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xliff/email/archives/201702/msg00132.html
Bryan moves to summarily approve simple editorial fixes (issues 21, 25-27, 29-31)
David seconds
no dissent, motion carried
review of possibly material (i.e. not obviously editorial) issues 22, 23, 24, 28
issue XLIFF-28: comments in the draft (in the ITS module)
David not material - most comments have already been addressed
it is now clear in the prose -- if not, it's editorial
Yves not sure about all of them
David have until Friday - can post extra comments for any that may not be editorial
will review as I will be working through them and flag any that would require material change
Yves are they all done? still to review?
David even link to ITS isn't material
Yves might be a lot - reviewers haven't seen final document
David most already addressed in prose, just the falg comment needs removed; review others
I think we have consensus to proceed
Bryan seconds
no dissent, motion carried
issue XLIFF-22: CTR warning and best practice guidance
David paraphrasing Chase: usability is lowered without guidance
discussion? opinions?
Yves haven't looked at changes yet
David two parts: editorial small fixes, and a request for guidance
not really a material change; no change to normative content
add specific links to guidance in attribute descriptions
will propose the specifc prose solution and call for dissent on the JIRA issue, to have the text ready and approved by 7 March
motion to approve proceeding with CTR guidance as outlined
Tom second
David no dissent
motion carired
issue XLIFF-23: handle ITS Translate in XLIFF
Yves agree with comment by Chase Tingley
David category that is NOT defined in ITS module, it's in core, this whole guidance is just informative..
change emphasis, use examples that really represent the different cases
how to address this comment?
Yves some tools don't handle tarnslate annotation properly
its' possible to get the text from the code and display the original data in GUI
David most tools have issues with displaying content of codes from original data. So you are really between a rock and a hard place if in teh code something that has linguistic relevance..
Yves also can use attributes in the code itself
either solution is a good one; depends on context
David provide better examples, show when protection by code is better and vice versa, don't discourage either..
David we have consensus, right?
call for formal consensus
Bryan second
David I don't hear dissent
Motion carried
issue XLIFF-24: missing itsm namespace on core extension points prose
David changing from URN namespace to W3C namespace - mass replace
now module has two namespaces; both need to be allowed on core extension points
artifacts are clear, suing both namespaces as required, but in prose the urn malesapce is missing
since it's okay in validation artifacts, this is just an editorial bug fix
it's clear we need to add it; editorial, or material?
any discussion?
Yves It's editorial - fixing an editing issue
David formally call for dissent to proceed with fix
Bryan second
no dissent, motion carried
David that's all the bigger issues, those who had potrntial to become material but chances are that all will be resolved as editorial.. Thanks for your input on that..
Bryan do we have enough agenda items to take us to the top of the hour?
progression to CS01 and beyond
to meet OASIS requirements, need Statements of Use
Lucia sent questionaire; David sent some recommendations
David clarifications, not contentious; bug fixes; Lucia can fix when she gets back from vacation
others please look at questionnaire, send comments and change requests by end of February
need a new extension example to replace SDL XLIFF example (used in 1.2 but not 2)
AI Bryan and Yves:
send to Lucía yor extension namespaces to replace the sdlxliff example that is irrelevant
David Felix and Soroush are working on implementations - should have some good implementations. Felix through FREME and Soroush possibly through oXzgen and FREME
Yves?
Yves I doubt it - implemented but doesn't really work; not sure I have enough time to fix it
David reached out to Ryan re: MS picking up at least the changes to CTR Module but didn't hear back
Phil and Chase (with OCELOT) depend on Yves's library so they may not be able to deliver if OKAPI isn't updated.
Bryan, plans to support in XMarker? or XLIFF roundtrip, the DITA OT plugin?
Bryan won't be able to get to ITS
hope to update CTR but can't commit to it
David will take some time to get to CS01
okay to proceed with a minimum number of implementations as required by OASIS
but need some outlook or pipleine for more robuts implementations esp. from industry
SDL won't pick up 2.1 unless MSFT object model is updated
Vistatec/Spartans won't unless OKAPI XLIFF Toolkit is updated
Bryan action items to reach out to Ryan re: MSFT SOU
update support for CTR in XMarker
concluded item 3; now item 4 P&L SC
David:
Asked XLIFF OMOS about XLIFF Symposium, the consensus is now across TCs for Silicon Valley
XLIFF OMOS committee making progress with JLIFF
David:
Presented (Soroush and I) XLIFF 2.1 csprd02 at XML Prague on 10th Feb with focus on ITS Module, was a successful presentation and we did have the cspr02 life thanks to Chet superhuman effort. Soroush also presneted on FREME and the oXygen XLIFF framework
For the record, XLIFF TC thanks to Chet for quick turnaround for the second public review!
Bryan agreed!
David TBX progress toward draft international standard
TAPICC sticks to XLIFF and XLIFF object model as payload, they are now mostly collecting business metadata across initiatives..
Bryan expected changes and timing for the new TBX spec?
David yes, change from TMX to XLIFF inline data model
Bryan does GALA own that standard?
David was always in ISO, even when it was dual published with LISA; lapsed to ISO only when LISA went bankrupt..
Bryan will new standard be free?
David will be published by ISO so need to pay for copies, not necessarily for Royaltess, AFSIK it's not patent encumebered. It's just those 80-90CHF for each copy..
But LTAC/TerminOrgs publishes industry profiles/dialects, notably TBX Basic
XLIFF mapping is with TBX basic and that will pickup the ISO standard changes.
Bryan new business for next week?
David proceed with approval to CS01 or CSPRD03
Bryan what makes the determination?
David if everything is editorial, vs. material, what we have now looks all editorial but we may reiceive new material comments by 24th February..
Bryan adjourn
==========
Attendance:
| Meeting Statistics |
| Quorum rule |
51% of voting members
|
| Achieved quorum |
yes |
| Individual Attendance |
Contributing Members: 5 of 33 (15%)
Voting Members: 4 of 6 (66%) (used for quorum calculation)
|
| Company Attendance |
Contributing Companies: 4 of 15 (26%)
Voting Companies: 3 of 4 (75%)
|